92 Comments
March 18, 2026 10:17 pm
It ain’t about saving the planet from climate catastrophe. It’s all about control. Dictatorial control.
Wouldn’t the climate changers be thrilled about the Straits of Hormuz situation but not the third world coming to the awful BIG POLLUDERS and learning their wicked ways smashing net zero goals? Not so it seems-
PE teacher sacked for saying ‘send the navy’ to stop small boats entering UK
Sounds like he’ll have to move to Australia to teach where his emissions thoughts are more appreciated.
March 18, 2026 10:32 pm
“Ask any political conservative out there what’s the one single word that best describes the mindset of the zealot political Left, and the word you’ll most often is “control.”
Yeah, this line probably sent away a lot of neutral readers but congrats, the tinfoil hat crowd here will be devouring your blah blah like it’s sacred scripture.
The only “sacred scripture” is that “the science is settled“.
While the Myers Briggs (Jungian) personality test is a standard psychological assessment, it is no more scientific than is the author’s personal anecdote.
The point of the article is that real science seldom enters the Climate Change discussion.
Most people conceive that heat can be trapped. You don’t understand the science if you can’t manage a high school level explanation of the following:
1. First law of thermodynamics
2. Second law of thermodynamics
3. Stefan Boltzman law
4. Beer Lambert law
“The only science is physics, all else is stamp collecting.”
“Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation states that at thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body equals its absorptivity for all wavelengths. This means good absorbers are also good emitters, and the ratio of emissive power to absorptive power is universal for all substances at a given temperature.”
This principle explains why dark clothes feel warmer in the sun (they absorb and then radiate heat efficiently) and why heating elements are often black (to maximize emission).
This applies to all matter, including gasses.
“……. the word you’ll most often is “control.”
… Yeah, this line probably sent away a lot of neutral readers …
Uh, no, my line probably caused most neutral readers to nod ‘yes’ to it. No need to trust me on this being ‘tinfoil hat,’ you yourself can go out and prove it true on your own. Go to the next GOP political rally you hear of (tell your friends that you’re going to a Not-ZTrump rally to trick conservatives into revealing their secret thoughts), tell the attendees you are taking a one-question poll, and use a clipboard to record reactions to “Tell me in just one word only what you think the ultimate objective is behind the liberals’ efforts.” The number of times they say “control” will probably shock you.
Wish I could have recorded it more than a decade back when I attended climate issue blogger Warren Meyer‘s slide presentation – during one part of the program about oppressive, unsupportable regulation, the audience guy next me leaned over and said entirely spontaneously, “these Al Gore nuts have only ever been about one thing: control.”
March 18, 2026 11:13 pm
Story tip?
Unbelievable Aussie labour gov. Fuel csar pick.
Albanese appoints climate bureaucrat as fuel crisis coordinator, despite calls for military-style leadership https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/anthony-albanese-appoints-climate-bureaucrat-as-fuel-crisis-coordinator-ignoring-calls-for-militarystyle-leadership/news-story/02bdca3f659e34bef85fb69c7ccba73d
March 18, 2026 11:57 pm
when anyone stops to examine any part of the political Left agenda, particularly over the last decade, there it is – you will conform to their narratives about the 2020 general election results / ‘undocumented Americans’ / Covid mask mandates / ‘transgender science’ / ‘reproductive justice’ / ‘saving democracy by censoring disinformation’ and do so without question ……. or else! Including agreeing with their narratives about stopping climate change. Obey.
Hang on. You’re telling me that when the Left wants you to conform to their narratives on those topics it’s a problem, but when the Right wants you to conform to their narratives on those same topics it’s ok? Why?
Not through dry, mild-mannered, highly persuasive bulletproof science presentations where there is no doubt that we face a climate crisis, thus convincing everyone to take critical thinking measures meeting the approval of Science Officer Spock.
I think you missed the point. “Convincing” is the key word. They may strongly believe in their conclusions and marvel at why others don’t, yet when the other side is not convinced and puts up their own data to support this skepticism they are smeared. Their livelihoods compromised.
I believe the legal profession refers to this as “trying this in the court of public opinion.” Prey on those least informed on the matter, while telling them not to listen to “those people over there.” “There is something wrong with those people over there.” “They are not morally superior like we are.”
Then they slink around in the shadows putting in place their “my way or the highway” solution. I don’t see anyone on the political “right” hiding behind the curtains implementing their plans for the rest of us.
(At the moment those that have been doing the smearing are getting a taste of their own medicine. And no one is lurking in the shadows doing it.)
There are vast differences in the way they treat the subjects. The right will not ban solar panels, they may stop subsidizing it. The left has stated they will ban carbon based fuels. Same with EVs versus ICE vehicles. The right will let any man wear a dress if he wants, they just don’t want you in a female private space or children to be mutilated. The left will demand that a child be mutilated without even letting the parents know, and absolutely will demand mentally ill men be allowed in women’s spaces. Hope that helps with your understanding or lack thereof.
Friend, you’ve inadvertently showcased the two main hallmarks of the hard-core Left: intellectual dishonesty and psychological projection.
… when the Right wants you to conform to their narratives on those same topics it’s ok ..
I did not say, nor do I ever imply, that the political Right demands conformity to their viewpoints. It’s a patently ridiculous notion. It’s not how we operate. If you tell others we do operate that way, it’s just plain dishonest. If you lie to yourself that we operate this way, that’s where the intellectual dishonesty part comes in. Throughout his entire talk radio career, Rush Limbaugh presented the liberal side of politics and rebutted with the conservative side. It’s what routinely happens here at WUWT, claims by the IPCC are presented and counterarguments are offered. It’s what we do. The legacy news media does not tell you about the skeptic scientist side. Al Gore told you they were industry-paid crooks … without viable evidence to prove it. Did you click on my word “Obey” up above? Try it and see what image comes up. You are to obey what that man says when you attend his Climate Reality training sessions, or you will be booted out and labeled as a heretic.
Such is where the psychological projection angle comes in. You imply our side demands conformity, when in fact it is your side demanding that. We present both sides and ask that you make up your own mind based on the facts. All of the facts, not half of them. The ‘energy industry used disinfo campaigns back in the 1991s‘ to push only their side?? Provably false.
I enjoy conversations with advocates. They know their topic. They are willing to listen,, to discuss, and in the end we all come away with a better understanding of the topic’s nuances.
I hate activists.. With them, if you do not agree to every single point they espouse and if you do not recite their rhetoric verbatim, you are phobic, denier, etc., etc., and deserving of the most severe defamations and silencing. If you aren’t my friend, you are my enemy, no middle ground allowed.
The problem with the binary definitions of left and right is it ignores the full spectrum. This is easy to do as the extreme activists have hijacked the conversations. The point is, it is a small percentage that is forcing (or trying hard to) their controlling ideologies on the rest of us.
Attributed quote, by further way of example, to Larry Grathwohl, FBI agent infiltrator of Bill Ayers “WeatherUnderground” extremist group – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk&t=53s
….They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called ‘the counter revolution.’ They felt that this counter revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, “well, what is going to happen to those people we can’t re-educate? They’re diehard capitalists.” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.” ….
That is what “Obey, or else!” looks exactly like in the ultimate form of it. Nobody on the conservative side even thinks of concocting such lunatic actions. It’s not rational. If people have a better way of thinking, they should present the viewpoint, and let folks decide for themselves. You do not implement it by force.
March 19, 2026 2:01 am
Defendants in these court cases, and skeptics of climate alarm in general, would do well to toughen up and reject the core claims of the “climate” movement on scientific grounds. My suggestion is to point out, from physical considerations, that the incremental IR absorbing power of additional CO2 is massively overwhelmed by dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. The modelers know this from the fundamentals. The claimed “harmful” influence of “GHG” emissions is vanishingly weak – indistinguishable from zero in the end result – in the proper context of the atmosphere’s operation as the compressible working fluid of its own circulation.
Science.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for listening.
The earth’s multiple, coupled energy systems can be compared to a 10,000 piece jig saw puzzle.
Picking up a corner piece and claiming the puzzle is solved is laughable. Same with all these bogus terms being thrown in (“control knob,” “greenhouse effect,” “climate pollution” for example).
Continuing with the metaphor, we have not yet completed the edge piece border. There is more we do not know than what we know and the puzzle is still in random pieces.
I really like this image, but I think it’s even more complicated than that. Not only is the puzzle infinite, but the pieces become smaller and smaller as you progress, and the discovery of a single pattern somewhere in the whole can at any moment change our understanding of the work that’s been done. A terrifying and wonderful complexity. I would find it boring if science could ever be “established.”
Regarding Russel Cook’s article, I agree that the far left has an obvious desire for control, and that frightens me. My only nuance would be about masks. The Japanese have been wearing masks for decades when they are sick, so as not to pass on their germs to those around them. It’s simply a matter of courtesy. In fact, during flu or gastroenteritis seasons, I’ve gotten into the habit of wearing a mask in enclosed public places or in crowded areas. I simply don’t want to get sick because someone coughed in my face. The problem is the disdainful and patronizing way mask-wearing was imposed on us, in France in particular. First there was “no need for masks,” then they were needed, but there weren’t any (because domestic production had been undermined), and then came the petty informers and self-righteous do-gooders pointing fingers at “bad citizens” who endanger others—after the public had been thoroughly mocked for weeks.
Is it really so difficult to be honest with citizens, to tell them: “We made the mistake of offshoring our mask production to China; masks are still the best way, along with frequent handwashing and social distancing, to protect oneself against any pathogen; while we regain self-sufficiency in mask production, we therefore ask the French people to take care of themselves and those around them, and to follow basic hygiene guidelines.”
This kind of message is easier to get across among the Japanese or Koreans, because they are naturally disciplined (for better and for worse), but the disastrous way the French government handled this health crisis is at least as responsible for the public’s distrust and fatigue as the so-called “undisciplined” nature of Westerners. Avoid mocking people and treating them like idiots, and you’ll see that many will do their best to return the respect you’ve shown them.
You say, “that is what defendants try to do.” OK, in general, but has any defendant in a recent “climate” case presented evidence against the core IPCC attribution of recently reported “warming” to human emissions of CO2 and other GHG’s? Not to my knowledge. Do you know of one? My point is that there is a strong case to be made against such attribution of any portion of any trend of climate variables, on physical grounds.
You can certainly look the case up. Since truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case, Steyn tried to introduce evidence on the truth or fallacy of the global warming argument as advanced by Mann. The court rejected his motion to use that evidence. Steyn lost the case, but damages were reduced to about $1 and Mann was ordered to pay his court fees. Steyn chose to represent himself, so he probably did not have significant attorney fees.
It appears you may be mainly referring to Judith Curry’s expert witness report submitted by the defense in that case, which was excluded by the judge.
Interesting, no question. But that exclusion by the court differs from what I am talking about when a plaintiff claims “climate” harm has been caused by a defendant.
Still, I don’t disagree with you that the courts are a potential problem in this regard.
Such was the point in my just-prior WUWT guest post, “SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Case on Colorado Dispute over Climate Change; (it should throw that case and all the others out)“. The energy company law firms waste invaluable time putting out esoteric arguments on court jurisdiction legal technicalities. These are “ExxonKnew” lawsuits – Exxon et al. supposedly knew as far back as the ’70s / ’60s / ’50s that their products caused global warming, but supposedly hid that knowledge from the public and instead deceived the public via disinformation campaigns to ‘reposition global warming as theory.” It sends me crawling up the walls how the energy company law firms miss the opportunity to show irrefutably how the ’70s / ’60s / ’50s were wall-to-wall global cooling reports, and how they miss the opportunity to drive a stake through all four accusation elements behind the false ‘disinfo campaigns’ accusation. Grounds for Motions to Dismiss on the false accusations alone, the defendant law firms need not even get into the science claims at all.
Thank you for your reply, and keep up the good work!
BTW, I worked for Exxon from ’78 to ’80 and it sends me “crawling up the walls” to see them now promoting CCS, in alignment with the unsound claims that emissions of CO2 have anything perceptible to do with climate trends. No one “knew” in 1980, or anytime earlier, what cannot be reliably established even now.
I am impressed with how well Simpson and Brunt composed their responses in 1938 to Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to emissions of CO2.
More here about that.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
I am waiting for the first case where the objectors demonstrate how they can identify which molecule came from which souce.
Further, all of the US CO2 emissions are a fraction of the total (say 25% as a guess). So, roughly 0.4 C of the 1.5 C claim is US. Now what portion of that 0.4 C can be attributed to Exxon?
A quick guess would be that the shape of the spectral profile of OLR would certainly change a lot. And the improved IR coupling of the surface to the lower atmosphere would make the atmosphere more responsive to daytime solar heating, so as to promote the general circulation. I don’t have a good guess as to whether the end result would be to warm the oceans or to cool them. I don’t think an overall cooling end result could be ruled out, considering there would likely be a significant cloud response.
Just my quick thoughts. Maybe too quick.
March 19, 2026 3:20 am
From the UK Guardian today…
On the chessboard, black and white pieces are lined up against each other for an unrelenting battle.
But in the middle ages, the game was not a metaphor for racial tension – but often a vehicle for equality and mutual respect, research has found.
The writer (like the Guardian) is so obsessed with something he thinks of as ‘race’, whatever that is, that he sees chess today as a ‘metaphor for racial tension’, whatever that is.
Wake up, its a game, sometimes the colors of pieces are white and black sometimes beige and brown…. The board colors are a variety, white and black rarely., mostly green and white. Is this maybe the unrelenting battle, or a metaphor for it, of the white race or the patriarchy versus the environment? Or against the Green Party?
Wake up: it just shows that in the Middle Ages people liked to play games and valued skill at them.
The battle is also not ‘unrelenting’, whatever that means. Every game ends either win lost or drawn.
These people are really suffering from an intellectual disorder. It may be incurable.
March 19, 2026 3:43 am
What we are dealing with here is what I like to call “The Church of Climate.” How said Church came to be is a long story, but it has its myriad True Believers on up to the High Priests of Climate. There are, of course those who pay lip service to the CC in order to gain power. For many, it is their life’s work as well as a calling. There is a great personal and emotional satisfaction to belonging to the CC. You are, after all, helping to “Save the Planet”. This moral superiority then, when faced with those who do not Believe, and who in fact are trying to tear down their Church turns to hatred and rage. “How dare you!”, the young Climate Priestess shouted.
Yes indeed. How dare we who value truth, science, freedom, and humanity itself.
March 19, 2026 5:36 am
As a young engineer with an electric utility, I had to summarize proposed regulations and follow the process of comments to final rule making. A big one was to eliminate “Acid Rain” by SO2 recovery at coal fired power plants. Acid Rain had been blasted in media for months/years (after Global Cooling, Terminal Coal, Population Bomb, etc).
Our testimony included regional availability of low sulfur coal with excellent performance at competitive price that already showed significant reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions.
After the comment period of mostly scientific, technical and economic issues the regulations were issued.
NOTHING changed. No reasonable compromize or even discussion. Regardless of science, valid data, research data offered in testimony, the regulations repeated their initial reasoning and issued final regulations.
I was SHOCKED. How could they ignore facts and massive costs to consumers?
Regulators get the job done–regardless of public testimony.
Political?
Precisely the same thing happened in the world of RCRA regulations and policy in the mid-1980s. After having been a science consultant to the EPA for five years, helping them develop rules and policies that were technically sound, but practical and results-oriented, EPA abandoned sound science and engineering and bowed the knee to the winds of politics.
While some remnants of the agency do good work, I have in general despised EPA ever since. The agency has now devolved into a power-hungry busybody, seeking control over every aspect of life.
Environmental stewardship is an essential aspect of human endeavor, but it does not make or create anything useful or of value in the marketplace. There is no such thing as a “ Green job.”
I was in that fight too. The most interesting part is that all these years later, with significant emissions reductions, the acidity of rainfall in the US has changed very little, the same lakes that were acidic before are still acidic because they are poorly buffered, and no one talks about acid rain.
I also recall being in a meeting in the early 1980s where one utility group–rural electric co-ops–agreed with the idea of acid rain emissions controls, because their customers/members wanted that. I think you could say the same thing about the preferences of customers of most utilities. They were willing to pay for it as well (or at least said so before the costs were known). No one ever considered the efficacy of draconian emission controls.
March 19, 2026 7:35 am
Shockingly, if you actually look at the data using process engineering login for anthropogenic CO2 itself, the data says human emissions are only a minor cause of increasing atmospheric CO2. There a 280 gt / yr of natural CO2 input and a 40 gt anthropogenic CO2 input into the atmosphere. These are the two inputs into the atmosphere that control atmospheric CO2. It should be obvious that the natural CO2 input is much larger. Human emissions cannot cause global warming via atmospheric CO2.
March 19, 2026 7:37 am
Myers-Briggs, devised by Isabel Briggs-Myers (!) based on her mother’s (Katharine Cook Briggs) initial version, is more sophisticated than the author may be aware. However, the anecdote is enlightening. Yes, using Jung’s categories, the two women developed the “test” and applied in empirically to numerous people, reshaping and revising it. At some point they realized that no one person fell entirely into one category, but usually had a primary and a secondary attribute. For example, the scientist was typically a thinker, first, and intuitive, second. Often the sensory person might be an intuitive second, thus an artist. Yes, like ALL of social science the MB indicator is unscientific in a cause-effect way, but it does capture a lot of individual characteristics, as an individual himself might realize.
Back to the central theme of the piece: control. The dominantly intuitive person might be a control-freak or she might be a “psychic,” in her own mind. There’re more than Jungian categories necessary to characterize a Stalin. The Stalin-est socialist is indeed all about control — power! Consequently, he’s always on the lookout for the latest cause he can use to leverage that power. Thus, racism (which does exist), Social Justice (canonical), the Environment (TM), Global Warming (Patent Pending), Climate Change (meme). Whatever floats the destroyer.
March 19, 2026 7:43 am
The right in the USA largely subscribes to the idea that individual freedom is to be preferred over government control. Our Constitution specifies a LIMITED government – government is but a necessary evil, and that governs best which governs least. And government is not the solution, it is the problem.
The ideas of the left are based on government dominance over the individual, with the collective to be preferred over the individual. People are coerced and forced to do things they never would choose to do of their own free will.
March 19, 2026 10:09 am
The Managed Contraction: A Strategic FrameworkI. The Intellectual Origin (The Blueprint)
- The Architect: Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
- The Thesis: The “Inconvenient Truth” that industrial civilization is incompatible with planetary survival.
- The Directive: A move toward “Degrowth”—the intentional downscaling of production and consumption to meet environmental limits.
II. The Moral Imperative (The Justification)
- Primary Narrative: “Save the Planet” and “Ecological Stewardship.”
- The Shift: Moving from individual liberty to “Collective Responsibility,” where the survival of the biosphere supersedes personal or national sovereignty.
III. The Catalysts of Change (The Fear Levers)
- Permanent Crisis (Climate): A slow-moving, existential threat that justifies long-term behavioral and economic restructuring.
- Acute Crisis (Biosecurity): Pandemics used as “stress tests” for global compliance, digital tracking, and the suspension of normal legal processes.
- The Dialectic: Utilizing the Problem-Reaction-Solution (Hegelian Dialectic) to introduce pre-planned “solutions” to manufactured or amplified crises.
IV. The Architecture of Power (Global Governance)
- Policy Layer: The UN (Agenda 2030) and the WHO (International Health Regulations).
- Financial Layer: The “Engine Room”—The World Economic Forum (WEF), BlackRock, and Central Banks.
- The Enforcement Mechanism: The transition from traditional money to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) linked to personal “Carbon Footprint” or “Social Credit” scores.
V. The Method: “Top-Down” & “Bottom-Up” Pressure
- Macro Strategy (Stakeholder Capitalism): Using ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores to force corporations to bypass consumer demand and follow globalist policy.
- Micro Strategy (Behavioral Nudging): Using Alinsky-style community organizing and “Cancel Culture” to silence dissent and enforce narrative conformity.
- Technocracy: The replacement of democratic debate with “Expert-led” consensus.
VI. The Final State: The Great Reset
- The Economic Shift: The “Rentier Economy”—transitioning from private ownership to a subscription-based model (“You will own nothing”).
- The Population Objective: A managed reduction in human footprint through restricted mobility, limited energy access, and dietary “optimization.”
- The New Social Contract: High-tech feudalism where resources are allocated based on compliance and perceived sustainability.
March 19, 2026 2:30 pm
One of the main reasons the Left lacks credibility is that it believes it knows what’s best for the rest of the populace and tries to enforce this belief whether the majority subscribes to their theories or not. That’s the reason for measures like carbon pricing, environmental restrictions and laws and green product mandates. Whether people really favor these measures is immaterial; as long as the alarmist faction believes it know what’s best for a misguided public, that’s a strong enough rationale for the proponents.
March 19, 2026 3:12 pm
Very nice Dr Lindzen. Most of us think we have the answers, it is crushing to find out you don’t. I was promoted to a mid management position at the small company I worked for. I thought to myself finally I can clean this mess up. Almost every one of my ideas crashed, they worked great for my small area of the operation but caused problems in other areas. I was lucky I had bosses who let me fail then help me down a better path. Failure is a great learning tool. Managing people is a really hard job, I’m glad I had good people helping me both above my level and below.
March 20, 2026 4:39 pm
Whats it all about? Its about uber-Capitalists and Marxists making common cause for the time being. The uber-capitalists see all those petro-dollars flowing to the Middle East,Nigeria, Russia etc, and want to turn them into electro-dollars going to Wall Street; the Marxists know fossil fuels underpin capitalism and so pushing for less fossil fuel usage must undermine capitalism, has to be good, hey? The end game is when the Marxists realise the uber-Capitalists are actually not their pals.
What the Climate Issue Is All About
From the Gelbspan Files
Russell Cook
It ain’t about saving the planet from climate catastrophe. It’s all about control. Dictatorial control.
True personal story setup first, then I’ll end with where we are today with the climate litigation lawfare efforts.
Ask any political conservative out there what’s the one single word that best describes the mindset of the zealot political Left, and the word you’ll most often is “control.” It’s never even crossed my mind to behave that way. It’s just not the way I think. I first learned about their mindset back in one of my 1980s college business psychology classes, and at the time, the lesson had precisely zero to do with any aspect of politics. The professor didn’t even tell us what the goal of the lesson was or wrap it up with an explanation of what happened.
First, we were given a set of questions to answer, which determined what personality type best suited us. I swiped the slide below from someone’s generic “organizational behavior” Powerpoint presentation, it’s the standard four labels for the way people think based on Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung’s ideas about analytical psychology. If any of the origins for the personality type labels was told to us, I sure don’t remember it.
In a nutshell, and in perhaps too generalized of summary, the “sensation thinker” personality type is what the fictional science officer Mr Spock was in the Star Trek TV / movie series. Pure logic, no emotion. The counter-opposite is the “intuitive feeler”, essentially Dr ‘Bones’ McCoy in that series, emotion-driven and prone to rash judgements. The other two quadrants were personality types of a more subtle kind, having aspects of the two more extreme types. From the test results, the class was divided up into the four groups. I ended up in the Mr Spock group, albeit with a streak of “feeler artistry” in my blood.
Each group was given all the characteristics of our opposite personality type and what their preferences were for comfort, regarding levels of independent judgement contrasted with intensity levels of supervisor instruction, and our assignment was to use what we learned about them to design a job position with a set of work conditions in which they would be completely happy to be in. Our group didn’t much care for the work conditions that our opposites preferred, but we empathized and did our best to design a work environment / job responsibilities they’d love.
At the end of those design sessions, they were exchanged with the opposite groups, and the leaders of each group type read the designs aloud and offered their assessments of how well done the designs were, with input from members of their group. I remember very little of how well the “sensation feeler” vs “intuitive thinker” results were; both groups had no dispute with what was designed for them.
I do remember how the “intuitive feelers” reacted to our design for them. Apart from us making a couple of incorrect guesses about small details, they thought we did quite well creating the ideal work environment for them. Our group was then even better informed on what they preferred.
I distinctly remember our reaction to the work environment the “intuitive feelers” designed for us.
We were aghast, left initially speechless, and struggled to find a polite way to respond.
The “intuitive feelers” hadn’t done one thing to cater to our preferences, their design for our ‘preferred work environment’ was hardly different at all than what we had designed for them. We were to work in a job their way … or the highway. With some kind of implied threat to our job security if we dared to operate outside of its boundaries.
I didn’t even think to apply political ideology to that exercise, but when anyone stops to examine any part of the political Left agenda, particularly over the last decade, there it is – you will conform to their narratives about the 2020 general election results / ‘undocumented Americans’ / Covid mask mandates / ‘transgender science’ / ‘reproductive justice’ / ‘saving democracy by censoring disinformation’ and do so without question ……. or else! Including agreeing with their narratives about stopping climate change. Obey.
Stop and consider how that side is now handling the climate issue. Not through dry, mild-mannered, highly persuasive bulletproof science presentations where there is no doubt that we face a climate crisis, thus convincing everyone to take critical thinking measures meeting the approval of Science Officer Spock. Compliance to climate mitigation will be enforced through court action. The fossil fuel industry will be sued into complete capitulation, and the “intuitive feelers” will control what energy sources the public has access to.
See the problem there?
Share this:
Like this: